G.R. No. 143217 . December 14, 2005.
AMANDO S. SAN JUAN, CARMEN V. PINEDA, NISSAN COMMONWEALTH, INC., METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, INC. and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, Petitioners, vs. MIGUEL L. ARAMBULO, SR., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Miguel L. Arambulo, Sr. initially filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (Civil Case No. Q-96-27127) before the RTC, Branch 104, Quezon City. The complaint impleaded Sunny Motors Sales, Inc. and petitioner Amando San Juan, alleging that they encroached on a portion of his lot, depriving him of its use. Before San Juan could answer, Arambulo filed a motion to withdraw this complaint on July 2, 1996, which the court granted in an Order dated October 8, 1996.
On the very same day he filed the motion to withdraw the first case, July 2, 1996, Arambulo filed a second complaint (Civil Case No. Q-96-27964) before the RTC, Branch 216, Quezon City. This second action was for cancellation of title, reconveyance, and damages with a prayer for a preliminary injunction against Amando San Juan and additional petitioners. The new complaint alleged that a substantial portion of his lot was fraudulently included in the titles of San Juan and co-petitioner Carmen V. Pineda.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of the second complaint (Civil Case No. Q-96-27964) constitutes forum-shopping.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no forum-shopping. Forum-shopping exists when a party files multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. Its elements are: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (c) identity such that a judgment in one case would result in res judicata in the other.
The Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals that these elements were absent. First, there was no identity of parties. The first case was against Sunny Motors and Amando San Juan only. The second case was against San Juan, Carmen Pineda, Nissan Commonwealth, Inc., Metrobank, and the Register of Deeds. Second, the causes of action and facts differed. The first case was a simple action for damages due to alleged encroachment. The second was an action in rem questioning the validity of the titles themselves, seeking their cancellation and reconveyance based on alleged fraud in their issuance. Third, the reliefs and subject matters were distinct: damages for temporary deprivation of use versus a direct attack on ownership and title. Consequently, a judgment in one would not bar the other under res judicata. The petition was denied for lack of merit.